Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
That is the wonderful thing about rights, Yelohamr. They do not require justification, explanation, or a discussion about the point of having them. As the Founders signed, "...truths...self-evident."
But, just for fun, lets follow the discussion just a moment. I am in no way acknowledging that rights need discussion in order to be valid. I am merely illustrating a broader/deeper view.
The setting: the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. The date: April 19, 1943. The situation: German troops move in to start deporting the the inhabitants. This was the scene of the uprising where a few hardy Jews who had kept or obtained guns kept the Germans from taking control until mid-May.
The Jews had permitted themselves to disarmed by the Nazi's starting with the gun control law in (1933?) and eventual actual gun confiscations.
So, under an uncharitable view, even if Allied air transport had somehow dropped some more guns in for the Jews, they would not have deserved the guns? They would not have deserved to be able to defend themselves?
Same for any weapons they could steal from the Germans, including battlefield pick-ups. Just because aJew surrendered his gun during the earlierconfiscations, he cannotnowsteal one from the Germans to defend himself, or receive one from a German killed by a compatriot? "Sorry, Issac. You turned yours in. You have no right todefend yourself, anymore. You don't deserve it."
Of course not. They deserved every chance they got to stay alive and fight back.
Even if they only discovered theirerror after the guns were confiscated, they still had the right of self-defense.
Self-evident truths. Unalienable rights.
yelohamr wrote:
SNIP If you want to roll over and let them take what you have to protect yourself with. What's the point of having them?
That is the wonderful thing about rights, Yelohamr. They do not require justification, explanation, or a discussion about the point of having them. As the Founders signed, "...truths...self-evident."
But, just for fun, lets follow the discussion just a moment. I am in no way acknowledging that rights need discussion in order to be valid. I am merely illustrating a broader/deeper view.
The setting: the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. The date: April 19, 1943. The situation: German troops move in to start deporting the the inhabitants. This was the scene of the uprising where a few hardy Jews who had kept or obtained guns kept the Germans from taking control until mid-May.
The Jews had permitted themselves to disarmed by the Nazi's starting with the gun control law in (1933?) and eventual actual gun confiscations.
So, under an uncharitable view, even if Allied air transport had somehow dropped some more guns in for the Jews, they would not have deserved the guns? They would not have deserved to be able to defend themselves?
Same for any weapons they could steal from the Germans, including battlefield pick-ups. Just because aJew surrendered his gun during the earlierconfiscations, he cannotnowsteal one from the Germans to defend himself, or receive one from a German killed by a compatriot? "Sorry, Issac. You turned yours in. You have no right todefend yourself, anymore. You don't deserve it."
Of course not. They deserved every chance they got to stay alive and fight back.
Even if they only discovered theirerror after the guns were confiscated, they still had the right of self-defense.
Self-evident truths. Unalienable rights.